₦airaland Forum

Nice. Make I go check. No be one person ask say who be Moffi the other day?

charlesemeka85:
Moffi scores his 11th goal of the season

I have never argued that a 16-year-old cannot fail the MRI test. Far from it, in fact, that article says 1 16 year old achieved complete fusion. 0.8%(1 in 130 players) of the 16-year-olds achieved complete fusion. Wouldn't you count that as an exception? What you look at are the averages.

Why did they not apply it only to us? Fair question.
Do you want FIFA(a global body) to apply it only to us so that you people will start calling them racist? That would be dumb. I will even join others in calling them racist. I may not be able to help it. We'll never admit that applying it to us cos we lie the most is fair. The sentiment would be more like, are they trying to kill African players? What's in the MRI that they are applying to only Subsaharan African players? Are they experimenting on us again? Endless. I would admit though perhaps this is part of the reason they didn't sample us too.

It's interesting that apart from the fact that F-MARC was located in Switzerland, which is convenient, it's also a mesh of three European countries.

Anyway, that's a digression.

Wait a minute, certainly referencing other good quality articles is part of good research, isn't it? It would be insincere to ignore that they actually collected conclusions from other articles and discussed them.
But before we look at the references, let's look at something else.

In the figure, you have a table of grades and average age. Here VI corresponds to complete fusion. This means that what FIFA would be looking for is incomplete fusion. If it's complete there's nothing to check. Once it's fused no other changes can be observed. It's a reasonable protocol if you ask me.
Do you see that complete fusion has an average age of 18.3 across those samples? Since this is the cap, it means that if you sample players that are actually 18 and 19 from these countries, with more of them 18, over half of them will pass the test. Remember 18.25 is still a pass. . We are still talking about Europeans/Asians/Arabs here. Also remember I have not included the standard deviation, as in +-.

Are you still following?

Odunayaw:
MRI major purpose is to prevent participation in the incorrect age group

For this reason it is administered to all races. Countries with verifiable birth data capturing are still subject to MRI. Why?

For example. Blacks from the USA. Even Abuchi Obinwa failed MRI even though he was born and bred in the US with verifiable documents

Were MRI conducted only for test study and not continued in determining eligibility for U17 tournament. Then you can fly your flag

They did not because they would be polluting their stats. I mean if you are well aware that they lie about their age, which means their chronological age as shown in a document is different from their actual age, you don't want to include them in your stats. You only select countries where you are sure their chronological age very likely matches their skeletal age, then you assume this standard applies to Sub-saharan Africans too. The bolded assumption is where there's a problem. Data whose source is unreliable and cannot be certified is practically useless. You would defeat the purpose for which the MRI was adopted. It would be a mistake, and quite dumb.

Do you understand this, and can I continue?

Odunayaw:
Tell me why. You must have an information we're not privy to

We will cover all of that, don't worry. Why do you think they didn't conduct an examination on any Subsaharan African country, given we are the most guilty of lying about our age? Ofcourse they referenced other studies. But their examination did not include any Subsaharan African country. . I mean i know that these people dominating the youth tournament lie about their ages. Should my examination not focus on these people more? But I choose to ignore all of them.

Odunayaw:
Right out of that same research work. Didn't you see it?

Oh yes.

do4luv14:
Una sha like Vawulence for this thread ooo,

Make I sidon dey look

You are the first person to answer this. Thank you. Let me digress a little bit. Do you realize there's no Sub-saharan African country in their study(I don't mean reference)? Why do you think they did not conduct the study on players from Subsaharan African countries? I mean we are the most guilty of lying about our age. Shouldn't sampling players from Subsahara Africa be the most important? Take a guess.
@Komekn, take a guess too.

Odunayaw:
No misrepresentation

No call me wetin I no call myself. It's coming, calm down my brother. . You had your chance.

TheGoodJoe:
cc: benji93

O! ye academia, come furnish us with your intelligence beyond world-renowned Radiographers.

Oh no, I am actually not basing my argument on 2009. It was the snack. Just threw that out there after I saw what someone else posted. My main argument is based on the article and its references. How many times will I repeat this? Listen. Listen. Apparently, there's someone else willing to do the mile, at least it seems so. Hopefully, he doesn't get lost too. You and@Goodjoe cannot follow anything. Just jumping from A to D. Calm down. Step by step.

Danielnino00:
The articled can be summarized like this

1) There were questions as to how Chukwudi and other players passed the first MRI test which raised doubt as to whether the test was conducted on them at all

2) Chukwudi and the suspected players failed to show up for the second scan which further casted doubts on their participation in the first scan

3) The MRI scan in 2009 wasn't made mandatory by FIFA.. It was easy for corruption to set in as it was voluntarily done by the NFF.

Based on all these, using 2009 as a case study for the authenticity of the MRI is pointless.. it wasnt a properly documented process...

Keep waiting my friend. Keep waiting. My only hope is that you are actually listening.

TheGoodJoe:

WE STILL WAITING.

https://d1kq2dqeox7x40.cloudfront.net/images/posts/nodes_5NatkF9Ucr.jpg

Yes, you are correct, at least in general. However, the captain of the side fortune Chukwudi seemingly passed the first and second tests at Abuja. As reported here.
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2009/11/over-age-scandalhow-nff-bigwigs-helped-eaglets-evade-2nd-mri-test/
It's actually quite suspect to want to conduct a second test on a sample of players. More like you are saying, our old papas cannot fail the test. I mean we are hosting the tournament, we cannot just be kicked out.

Certainly, there are medical situations that require repeated testing. I am not sure this is one of them. It is 99% accurate.

Danielnino00:
Dey play... MRI wasn't mandatory in 2009 and only a few players were subjected to the test . It wasn't until 2013 that it was adopted on a large scale

Do you know that the MRI was first introduced in 2009? The under 17 world cup was held in Nigeria. Ogenyi Onazi, Stanley Okoro, Omeruo, Olarenwaju Kayode, and Ramon Azeez must have passed the test that year. Can you believe those folks passed the test? Can you believe it?

Mujtahida:
My point really is that the prevalence of age cheating, has provided good grounds for doubts to be cast on the age of our footballers.
Are there people who give their real ages? Yes. Look at the 93 u-17 set for example. Those guys were either 17 or thereabouts. But Chrisantus and his fellow grandpas were totally out of the range.

All I'm saying is that if people don't cheat, nobody will have grounds to even cast aspersions in the first place.

Great. The lead author Jiri Dvorak, was FIFA's chief medical officer and the chairman of the FIFA Medical Assessment and Research Centre at the time. In fact, he suggested the MRI. I believe he's no longer with FIFA now. You won't find any study as comprehensive.

Having said that let's fire away.

The figure below shows the sampling strategy. The examination protocol was performed in 4 countries: Switzerland, Malaysia, Argentina, and Algeria. Am I correct?
Pls check the picture against the article to be sure I am not lying or misrepresenting anything.

Odunayaw:
Please tell me why it's the most important and also tell me your deductions from it

Yes, this is the most important study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465138/#!po=41.1111

And yes I did mention ScientificAmerican, but you may want to be careful referencing it. Be sure they are properly referencing their references.

You seem to be open to a nice exchange. So let's continue.

Would you like me to tell you why it's the most important paper to rely on? Or we can just move on?

Odunayaw:
[b][/b]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dear-fifa-there-is-no-scientific-test-to-prevent-age-fraud/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465138/#!po=41.1111


These are the two papers you shared. The Ghanian study was referenced in the former

What's the most important study. Post, I have time to go through it

Nope. That wasn't the paper I originally shared. I believe at least one of the papers you mentioned is a reference in the main paper I shared. You seem to be interested so let's go.
Are you aware of the most important study on which FIFA based its decision to adopt the MRI?

Odunayaw:
You've shared two papers

One says; A sample in sub‐Saharan Africa[Malawi] showed slower skeletal age development.

The other: [paraphrased] "There isn't enough research on Subsaharan Africa to determine"

---

Enter Ghanaian research: MRI SCANS OF THE LEFT WRISTS OF 86 PLAYERS ASPIRING TO PLAY FOR THE NATIONAL U17 FOOTBALL TEAM

Results


Conclusion



From this research, correct me if I'm wrong, I deduce that

- Ghanaian kids (sample for West Africa) do not have slower skeletal age development
- A 15/16 y/o [on paper] Ghanaian is 50/50 likely going to fail an MRI.

So how is a Nigerian 20/21y/o going to pass. Bring your research

@mostob, read this carefully(very important) and answer.

benji93:
I think I need an audience here. I would like to know if my questions to this man GoodJoe are fair.

The discussion is about my claim that many 20/21-year-old Subsaharan Africans Players would pass the MRI test.

Note the keyword: Subsaharan African players.

As should be the case for any argument, @GoodJoe, said that was far from accurate. Fair enough.

So after running around in circles, we agreed to start again.

This subject particularly has an academic component. In fact, we are in luck we can have access to one of the most important articles FIFA based their decision on. I'll even show you why this is the most important.

My question to you all is simple. Isn't it fair to discuss this article and its references in order to draw informed conclusions on this matter?
Should these academic articles not be the first resort, instead of Punch, tribune, anecdotes e.t.c? I am not saying that these are not at all useful. But what should be your first stop?

If you are discussing an article you may want to be sure the other parties are following so you ask them questions. This is the crime i have committed my people. I asked questions.

Pls help me beg him to answer my questions. He's been dodging them. He runs away at the second step.

Unfortunately for you, I am not running from answering questions. . Answer my question first.

mostob:
Gbam!
This question is worth millions of dollars.

Benji come and answer please.

@Danielnino00, pls read this and answer the question. So far everyone has been dodging this and dabaruing everything.

benji93:
I think I need an audience here. I would like to know if my questions to this man GoodJoe are fair.

The discussion is about my claim that many 20/21-year-old Subsaharan Africans Players would pass the MRI test.

Note the keyword: Subsaharan African players.

As should be the case for any argument, @GoodJoe, said that was far from accurate. Fair enough.

So after running around in circles, we agreed to start again.

This subject particularly has an academic component. In fact, we are in luck we can have access to one of the most important articles FIFA based their decision on. I'll even show you why this is the most important.

My question to you all is simple. Isn't it fair to discuss this article and its references in order to draw informed conclusions on this matter?
Should these academic articles not be the first resort, instead of Punch, tribune, anecdotes e.t.c? I am not saying that these are not at all useful. But what should be your first stop?

If you are discussing an article you may want to be sure the other parties are following so you ask them questions. This is the crime i have committed my people. I asked questions.

Pls help me beg him to answer my questions. He's been dodging them. He runs away at the second step.

No my friend. I am not even saying he's 30. Pls listen. Listening is key. . I am saying even if you add four that would 30. Most players are just as good unless they have had several injuries extending over a long period of time into their prime, so your point that because he's still at least a decent DM now, he cannot have lied by at least 3 years is not great. Find another thing my brother.

As i said listen and listen. I was about to give you a breakdown of the reasoning behind my assertion and it's actually based on the most important study that informed FIFA's decision. You were certainly not following the conversation. I posted something else recently. I wat you to read it and get back to me.

Danielnino00:
We should add 4 years because Benji says so? You have no evidence whatsoever to back up any of your claims..Just assumptions and assumptions. If this was a court of law,your argument would be thrown out the moment you present it... There are pictures of Ndidi with the u-17 in 2013 where he looks as young as his mates who passed the MRI back then...Go and check..

I think I need an audience here. I would like to know if my questions to this man GoodJoe are fair.

The discussion is about my claim that many 20/21-year-old Subsaharan Africans Players would pass the MRI test.

Note the keyword: Subsaharan African players.

As should be the case for any argument, @GoodJoe, said that was far from accurate. Fair enough.

So after running around in circles, we agreed to start again.

This subject particularly has an academic component. In fact, we are in luck we can have access to one of the most important articles FIFA based their decision on. I'll even show you why this is the most important.

My question to you all is simple. Isn't it fair to discuss this article and its references in order to draw informed conclusions on this matter?
Should these academic articles not be the first resort, instead of Punch, tribune, anecdotes e.t.c? I am not saying that these are not at all useful. But what should be your first stop?

If you are discussing an article you may want to be sure the other parties are following so you ask them questions. This is the crime i have committed my people. I asked questions.

Pls help me beg him to answer my questions. He's been dodging them. He runs away at the second step.

Can you all see people? You are not careful with your numbers GoodJoe. Where did you get 99% from? I am waiting.

TheGoodJoe:

Explain your point. Stop jumping around. The floor is open. Prove your flawed and false theory.

Oh yes, the article actually 1 player actually achieved complete fusion at 16. The question is not that an actual 16-year-old cannot fail the MRI. Ah, i know say no be all of us dey academia, but at least listen. Listening is a very important trait. Ensure that you understand what the person is saying then shoot.

You clearly don't understand what's going on here. I told you my deduction is based on an academic article(the most important one in this matter), but you insist on using the word "assumptions". Pls be sure you know what exactly something is about. Listen.

I was hoping you would calm down and grow through the article so I can arrive at my deduction. You are expecting me to just go from A - D. Unelss you are a child prodigy i won't do that. Na step by step.

mostob:
You do know there are a lots of factors that could make a 16-year old fails MRI?

Since you're basing your argument on assumptions, I think we should close the matter. No need for further argument bro...

Peace

I have told you and I will repeat it again. This happens to be a subject you can discuss on academic grounds. So I would reference journal articles that discussed the subject, especially the most important ones and their references. I am not just running to tribune, punch e.t.c. On other matters, I could do that. Only a small fraction of our discussions on football require an academic/scientific context, this topic happens to be one of them. I have been very kind to you. . I asked you a very simple question, and you dropped out. Very insincere. On academic matters, I won't do that with you. I have been quite upfront with you.

Again, my argument that 20/21 year olds can pass the MRI test is my informed deduction from that most important article and their references. You see how clear i have been. I am not just throwing numbers. It's not useful, other than muddying everything up.

By the way, can you tell us where you got 99% from?

This means that being able to make my deduction requires being able to understand the results presented by that article and some of its references. If you do not understand the article, you won't get my deduction. Very very simple.

I know you will chicken out again.

If anybody wants to pick up the gauntlet, come forward. Very simple, we'll bring up the article and discuss it, in which case i'll ask some questions to be sure you are following. That's not so difficult. That's all I ask.

TheGoodJoe:

The fusion time before 17 differs from one area to another. However, from 17, it is 99% accurate. It is hard to find people above 17 without completely fused wrist plates. That is why it is accepted by all countries around the world. Even Nigerian radiologists. Unfortunately, you do not know close to what they know.

Sorry, but you can do better. According to Wiki Ndidi is currently 26. Add four years. That would be 30. Today most players do just fine at 30. Was Drogba still not at least a decent striker at 30? The number of years does play a factor, only in how many of those you've been accumulating injuries(wear and tear). But it's not absolute. Different injuries have different recovery rates or how much of your previous self you can recover. So while injury may cause one's career to derail throwing the injury argument is not enough without discussing the kind of injuries.

Danielnino00:
Since you are basing your statements on assumptions, how about this?
Ndidi that you claim might have falsified hid age has been playing professionally for 10 years now and is considered one of the best DM in the premier league and definitely top 10 in the world based on verifiable stats..Never mind his recent injury spells..
If Ndidi falsified his age, I don't think he would be playing so well at a top level at this stage..

The problem is you are assuming Ndidi and Muazam were actually 16-year-olds because they claimed it. They claimed they were 16, and FIFA was not sure they were telling the truth so they use the MRI. Our players have a history of lying about their ages, so for the recent generations, the assumption is they are likely lying, hence the use of the MRI to screen out the old papas 22+ claiming 16. The question is what is the maximum actual age for which a player can claim 16 across the world? Does it differ from one place to another? And if possible by how much? So do you want me to continue with my point?

mostob:
That's why I said your stance is thought-provoking. If Ndidi and Mu'azam could failed the test as 16-year olds, I'm still wondering how a 20/21 - year old will scale through.

Interesting, I have not even made my point. . Are you sure you already know how I was going to get to 20/21 yrs?

mostob:
Now, I get you. Your opinion stems from deductive reasoning.
There is no need for further back-and-forth then. And to be honest with you, your stance is thought-provoking.

Sure, you see this is a subject that has an academic component, so if you do not sequence your arguments well you will just end up going past each other. I took that path, then I realized he was answering imaginary questions. I make an argument with a premise, he makes his argument with a different premise. Such a back-and-forth is unfruitful unless going around in circles is your plan.

So since you are willing to go forward, let's go with you.
I assume you are well aware of my argument.
I opined that over half of a sample of 20/21-year-old Sub-Saharan African players will pass the MRI test. To be clear this is a deduction I made. It's not a conclusion drawn by any study, at least not directly.

To be able to properly discuss this topic and make deductions we have to go back to the most important study that led to FIFA's decision to adopt the MRI.

Is this a fair direction to take?

mostob:
To say I don't know anything about MRI because I didn't contribute a 400-word thesis when the argument was going on is just laughable. I don't have the time to engage in unnecessary arguments. Mind you, we still had same argument on this thread few months ago.

Moreso, I expected you to back up your claim with facts but you kept twisting and turning. TBH, I was looking forward to learn something new too because the pot of knowledge is wider.

The.goodjoe gave Ndidi's case as an example. If Ndidi could failed the MRI at such age, how then could a 21-year old pass MRI? Genetics? Environment? Feeding?

Mind you, I'm not disputing your claim. I just want you to elaborate more.

Bless you bro.

Let's go another round. .
My argument was that over half of 20/21-year-old Sub-saharan African players would pass the MRI test.
You argued that it is far from accurate. Is this at the center of the argument?

TheGoodJoe:
There is no beginning. Explain to us how such fake idea came to you.

Do you want us to start from the beginning again? . I'll do my best to be clearer with my questions.

TheGoodJoe:
Tales by moonlight.

Explain to us how you came to such a bogus and false idea of a 21 years old beating the MRI wrist scan.

This word you always want to avoid it at all cost.

fabyom:
Stop disrespecting Nwakali! Of course, he is not where he supposed to be however there is no doubt that the talent is there. He will definitely move to Laliga this summer just like Sadiq!

@Komekn, make I ask the question again?

A piece of advice Sir. Any matter wey you no know the start, no jump headlong, update yourself first before you dive in. . We ask your oga simple academic question, him no fit answer. I fit argue tiki taka with am anyday, but on top this matter you have to show you understand the most important paper FIFA based their decision to adopt the MRI on. If you cannot understand it, you cannot command understanding of any deductions that follow. Tell him to answer our question, then we continue the conversation. .
@MainJoe pls answer the question for the sake of this guy. I challenge you.

Edit: @TheGoodJoe, seems your account is back, troublemaker.

mostob:
I'll be surprised if you have.

Simple question... Can you prove that a 21-year old can pass MRI? Na so so story una dey type everywhere.

Anyway, why have you refused to respond to my question concerning Moffi? Running away with your tail behind your legs already?

Na you suppose hide in shame, no be Komekn. . Anyone that knows his onions with respect to discussing decisions supposedly based on a comprehensive scientific study knows to set some ground rules, otherwise, you would run around in circles. In the course of our discussion I realized that when I make an argument that poses one question, you invent your question and answer it. . Such duplicity. You clearly have no idea what the article is saying. You are scared to answer a simple question.

Everyone bear me witness. I will do it one more time. Komekn, if you can chime in, pls do. And certainly anybody else.

As shown in the figure, the article details a study that conducted an examination protocol on samples of players from four countries. Switzerland, Malaysia, Algeria and Argentina. True or false?

MainJoe:
The point is simple. There is no theory to support your bogus lies of 20/21 years old passing MRI.

A man with so much integrity should not spend time spreading lies because he can't stand Nigerians born locally doing well.

I just showed you a peered-review article showing young players failing the MRI. For your twenty years old passing theory, they should pass better. They didn't because you lied. There is no evasion.

benji93 is the one being evasive. I have repeatedly asked him to explain his Theory and he is saying I have to be in sync with an article.

Sorry, that is ridiculous. No one needs to be in sync for anyone to explain a point.

You hinged on his bias,bogus and unproven point because it supports an uneducated lie you tried o spread.

By the way, you rated the Segunda division lower than the English league two. All of a sudden, you are running the same League Two as mediocre and then tried to talk integrity.

Tomorrow you will say it is constructive criticism but you are severely hurt seeing Iheanacho score that you needed any excuse to hide your shame.